A personal journey through Karen's eyes

[Dom R]

Dom, this was my question. I agree that monogamy is best while you're with someone (i.e., I'm not in favor of affairs or open marriage). My serious question was why is it better to have one partner over the course of several decades than to have three or four partners over the course of several decades (while being monogamous in each relationship while you're in it)?
...

Why is this categorically better than marrying at age 25, raising three children for 20 years, and then changing partners at age 45-50?

Hmm.. i attempted to give my own personal reasoning for it, but maybe i was too fuzzy about it. I'll give it another shot.

It's a two part answer.
[aaand.. very long now, it seems. phew!]



I think that, if a relationship is strong enough after 15 years, to merit being better (in your own, completely selfish judgement, not "for the children") to stick together, than to go find a "fresh new romance" with someone else... then that same relationship should still feel good enough to merit continuing to stick together after 25, 35, 45 years.

I think that having a longstanding positive history, of potentially half your life, with one person, cannot be matched by a relationship with anyone else.


I think that this is actually the unspoken understanding of most people about marriage. which is probably why most people enter into it in the first place.


--------

second part of the answer:

What makes it positive, is the commitment to a life long marriage. No marriage stays positive, without concious effort, aka "work". The commitment, helps keeps the willingness to work on it going.


In contrast, the "if", in the first part, tempts people who arent committed to life-long marriage, to sit back after X number of years, and say to themselves... "well, this relationship is NOT seeming to be better than going out and finding someone else for me right now.. so it sure wouldnt seem that way after another 10 years. I'm bailing now, and going to look for "someone else".

Trouble is.. that attitude is self-fulfilling. I dont have a specific study to name right now, but I think that enough research has been done to prove that for the vast majority of "life-long marriages"... they only last that long, when both people are committed to the concept of life-long marriages in the first place.

They work out well for each other.. BECAUSE both people already agree, "divorce is not an option" (AND on top of that, "well, if we're going to be together, then we should make our time together as enjoyable as we can)

it's the reason why arranged marriages are, on the whole of it, "more successful", than western "love" based marriages. Because there's none of this "I'm not 'in love' with you, the marriage is over" crap. People get their heads down, and work on the marriage, even when they dont "feel like it".


To put it another way... If someone has already decided, "I'm going to leave this marriage at year 10", then the closer it gets to that date, the less they are going to work at making the marriage a good thing. because they're leaving anyway, so why bother?


If you agree that what I have written above, is a fairly accurate description of most people's attitudes.. then I think you might agree that if people suddenly change attitudes, to "changing partners every 20years is fine"... then the last few years are going to suck. (it's the "lame duck president" effect. the last year in office is mostly wasted). The "20 year marriage", will essentially become the 18 year marriage.

And then once that becomes expected, and "well, everyone's marriage tanks after 18 years..." so with the expectation of the marriage "ending" after 18 years... the new expectation will then effectively become the 16 year marriage... and so on, and so forth.

sadly, I think that for a large chunk of society, this has already happened. it's somehow almost more expected for a marriage to end after 5-8 years or something.

Which lowers peoples expectations for themselves to stick it out. Which means they dont work as hard at their marriage. Which means their marriage will tank. :-(


One followup note coming, which I think deserves its own post.

[Dom R]

Followup to "why long-term marriage is better"...

An adjunct to this paragraph, which I wrote above:

I think that having a longstanding positive history, of potentially half your life, with one person, cannot be matched by a relationship with anyone else.


There is also another thing that cannot be matched easy by another new relationship: a history of overcoming adversity together. Ironically, successfully overcoming huge horrible marital obstacles.. such as an affair, or various other problems people write about here... seems like it can end up bringing people CLOSER together, than otherwise.

On another site, I've read more histories of people who have "made it through the other side"... and a majority of people generally write something along the lines of, "it was horrible, in many ways, i wish it never happened... but in some ways, i'm glad, because it has strengthened our marriage and brought us closer than I would have ever imagined we could be".

I think that, at least for the person who is forgiven... if you know someone has dealt with the worst you can throw at them... and they can still forgive you and love you... then you know that you will probably never find another person who will love you that deeply in your life again.

Some people realize that, and treasure that eventually, seems like, from the long-term recovery stories.
Other people, apparently, could care less, and just throw the other person away.
Too bad for them. They lose. Because it is comparatively easy for the LBS to find someone who will treat them better than the betrayer. But it's going to be reaaaaally difficult for the betrayer to find another person with that amount of love (real, unselfish, non-romantic-chemical-driven love) for them again.

I think it's almost impossible to find someone at 40, who will love you at 50, as much as someone who has known you since you were 20 or younger. Sure, it's possible to have a good relationship. Even a great one. Just... not "as great" as someone who has loved you "since your youth".




----------------

(wonder if anyone will actually read all that? heh...)

[Lillieperl]

Well, Dom, you've left us widows pretty much out in the cold, haven't you?

I think that having a longstanding positive history, of potentially half your life, with one person, cannot be matched by a relationship with anyone else.

Yeah, someone who marries at 25 and divorces at 50 could marry again at 50 and be married until 75.

I think long marriages are great. And I think people who hit obstacles and work through them and stay married a long time are fortunate and blessed. I'm not against them. I'm not suggesting they should get divorced just to introduce variety in their lives.

I'm just asking why it is automatically assumed that a long marriage to the same person is better for most people than two or three marriages to different people over the course of a 75 or 80 year life span?


My parents were married 43 years and were miserable most of the time. When I was in high school I used to wish they would get divorced and find other people so perhaps I would have a chance at a normal family life. My father died in 1989. Finally at age 80+ my mother has figured out how miserable she made him. (He made her miserable, too, but I don't know if he ever figured that out before he died.) She controlled him. She blocked him. She rained on all his parades. He would have been SO much happier with someone else. But they were good Catholics and stayed married. What a waste, I say.


ETA: Frankly, hairdog, I see mrs hairdog having a similar insight should you (God forbid a zillion times!) predecease her. She'll realize how miserable she made you, and it won't do either of you any good. I guess there could be some small satisfaction for you in picturing her standing over your grave, weeping and begging you to forgive her.

[MJontheMend]

t's the reason why arranged marriages are, on the whole of it, "more successful", than western "love" based marriages.

Of course, most arranged marriages occur in cultures where the infidelity of married males is winked at and women just sit home and do needlework and suffer from hysterical illnesses or lose their sex drive after the 8th kid sucks them dry or gives them uterine prolapse.

[Dom R]

Well, Dom, you've left us widows pretty much out in the cold, haven't you?

me? I didnt do anything to anyone.
I just stated why I think that a positive long-term relationship, would feel better (to me, at any rate) than a positive shorter-term one.
Even after 10 years of marriage, i can feel that about myself.

Even if I got remarried, I would still miss the women that I "grew up with", so to speak.

widow(er)hood is a very sad fact of life, sometimes.
doesnt make what I said true or not true, though.

Even if my wife DIED right now, and we never got the chance to reconcile... I would still miss her. I miss her either way.

I'm just asking why it is automatically assumed that a long marriage to the same person is better for most people than two or three marriages to different people over the course of a 75 or 80 year life span?


My parents were married 43 years and were miserable most of the time. When I was in high school I used to wish they would get divorced and find other people so perhaps I would have a chance at a normal family life.

Ah, but here's the thing, though.
you're not just asking "why is a long marriage, better than multiple shorter ones?" Seems like the full question on your mind is, more specifically, "why is a long miserable marriage, better than getting re-married, and being happy in the second one?"

Right?


However, that is the "suckers choice", alluded to in that book that i referenced. People in that situation, dont only have a choice between those two things. It isnt only a choice between "a long miserable marriage, or getting divorced and marrying someone else".

If both people behave like mature and good people, there is always the possibility of building a better marriage.

You described how your mother realized, late in life, how miserably she treated your father.
She was capable of realising that.
Now imagine if she had just realized that 40 years earlier?

What a waste, I say.

i agree. what a waste, that your mother did not choose to look at herself while her H was alive, and choose to be a better wife while she had the chance?

her realization later in life, shows that she was capable of realizing, that she was not treating him right. That seems like the biggest obstacle in marital fights and breakups... for each person to realize what they themselves are doing negatively to the marriage. Once they fully realize that, it is a lesser effort to stop doing those negative things.

your parents' marriage COULD have been better. if they stuck to both parts of the marital commitment... to be together, AND to keep loving each other and trying to work on their marriage... they could have had a wonderful marriage. not "by finding someone else".. but with each other.

that, is the true waste, in my mind.


Sorry if you feel like i am somehow insulting your parents. that's not my intent. I'm primarily just trying to communicate what a tragedy it was, both for them and you, that they only went half-way down the marital path together.

[RealJourney]

When I was in high school I used to wish they would get divorced and find other people so perhaps I would have a chance at a normal family life.

Lil, I told this to the very first counselor I went to and was told, " You really don't mean that." Of course, I did. There was so much open hostility it freaked me out. My brother was more ADDH/manic and detached, but I got absorbed in the whole thing. I was used as an ally and a judge, and in an unhealthy way, these roles gave me importance.

My parents matured and mellowed out since then ( it took about 40 years and I am not joking), but I often wonder what my brain would have been like without all that emotional trauma/drama.

[Miss IC]

IC,

If I initiate H will sometimes participate in a regular vanilla kinda way, sometimes he will lay there and he will accomodate me ("lay there and think of England") and sometimes he will come up with an excuse or even worse, pretend he doesn't realize that I am initiating.

If I mention that someone showed sexual interest in me, H takes it in stride, "Of course, you are hot". What????????????????????

Karen

(((((( Karen ))))))

I haven't read your entire situation from the start, but what have you tried...not sexually...to bring to his attention that things are not up to par in the sex department? Maybe you've tried the dramatic, maybe not...just wondering.

I personally don't know what it takes. IC and myself discussed divorce...pretty dramatic, but it still didn't open my eyes. Fortunately for us, it did open IC's eyes and he took it from there.

Hugs to you Karen, I hope somehow, someway, that things will turn around for you and your husband. You sound like a real sweetheart and deserving of the best

[Lillieperl]

I agree with your comments about my parents' marriage. It would have been better if she could have realized earlier. I don't know if my father had any such realization before he died. (Don't forget I said they made each other miserable.)

you're not just asking "why is a long marriage, better than multiple shorter ones?" Seems like the full question on your mind is, more specifically, "why is a long miserable marriage, better than getting re-married, and being happy in the second one?"

No, I'm not asking that. I'm asking why we automatically assume that it's better for any given person to be in a long marriage than several ones that are shorter (but still, say, 8-10 years).

If we hear that someone has been married three times, the automatic assumption is that the person has no sticking power, is shallow, didn't want to work at the R, etc. All of which OR NONE OF WHICH may be true.

And, clearly, if both people want to make a marriage better and both are willing to work, a marriage can last a long time. THAT'S not my question or my issue.


Sort of like when I was first in the job market (1970-ish) when you put together your resume, you wanted to show a few years at each job, the longer the better. So if you had 10 years here and seven years there, that was good. Nowadays, in the job market, if you stay more than four or five years at a job, it's often assumed that you're stagnating, not ambitious, not challenging yourself. A resume can be okay if you only have two years at each job and there are several jobs (as long as each successive job shows a step up the ladder).

I'm asking why we automatically assume one long marriage (happy or unhappy) is better than several shorter ones when people now live into their 70's and 80's?

That REALLY is my question, but I'm looking forward to how you will distort it.

[OG_Lou]

Lil= That REALLY is my question, but I'm looking forward to how you will distort it.

Me too.

Dom, can you stick to a “middle of the road” common situation. I see you post and go towards the extremes/good or bad, ideal/worst case situation in your replies.

The extremes have some people questioning the general validity and applications of your posts.

Lou

[Dom R]

And, clearly, if both people want to make a marriage better and both are willing to work, a marriage can last a long time. THAT'S not my question or my issue.

....

I'm asking why we automatically assume one long marriage (happy or unhappy) is better than several shorter ones when people now live into their 70's and 80's?

That REALLY is my question, but I'm looking forward to how you will distort it.

I'm confused, then. Why are you even asking the question?
The last time you asked, you brought up the specific example of your parents' marriage, as a counter example to "why a lifelong marraige is bad". Seemed like an understandable reason to have doubts about it.


This time, though, you say that wasnt the core reason. Instead, you bring up a comparison to "the job market", and how people switch through different jobs.

You seem to say that even if a marriage is "good", it somehow may be beneficial to jump around every 10-20 years.

ok, lets compare jobs vs marriage:

what are the reasons people voluntarily leave one job for another?
I would say they are basically,

• To make more money
• For a "better position" (ie: more power)
• because they are "bored".

the first two, dont translate to marriage very well. Unless someone "marries for money". Which is more like a business transaction rather than a marriage. If that is a person's goal, then I guess it makes perfect sense to change every few years
Similarly, for "more power".

Being "bored", shouldnt really be a factor in a good marriage. a good marriage, should support both person's goals, and allow both people to "grow", while still staying together. If a person doesnt "grow" in a marriage.. it is most likely due to themselves, not the marriage. At least in a good one.

I think it most of all depends on the reasons a person has to get married in the first place.

If you wanted to first state a reason for it, and then pose the question of "one long marriage vs multiple" in that context, I think it would be possible to have a more useful discussion on that.

----------------------------

I think if the reason a person gets married, is "for companionship, and to give and receive love", then the "change every few decades" idea, isnt the best... either from a comparison to job hopping... or even in the semi-extreme case of your parents' marriage.

I missed commenting on my prior post, so really wanted to mention it, for that line of reasoning as well.

You expressed your childhood wishes, that you "used to wish they would get divorced and find other people so perhaps I would have a chance at a normal family life."
By that, I guess you mean, "loving happy mother, and loving happy father" type living.

The thing is though.. your parents getting divorced, would probably NOT have lead to that final result. For two reasons:

Just looking at "the odds"... most second marriages, have a WORSE divorce rate than first marriages. 60% vs 50%. If you make the assumption that some amount of those, have extremely unhappy people, but not QUITE unhappy to go through divorce again.. I think it is reasonable to guess that there is a 70% "unhappiness" factor, in second marriages.
So, your mom would have probably had a mere 30% chance of giving you that "happy family". Not very good odds?

But its not just about odds. The reason that the second marriage fails, according to various research, is because the person leaving the marriage, doesnt fix the problems that they brought to their first marriage.

If your mother didnt realize how badly she treated your father.. she probably would have continued her poor marital behaviour, with any second marriage... which would make her second husband just as miserable, and not give you that happy home you, or she, wished for.

Contrariwise.. if she realized earlier how her own behaviour was detrimental to her marriage... she could have fixed it, with her first husband. Having a second marriage to have happiness, wouldnt have been neccesary.


To put it back in job search terminology, and bring in a POSITIVE example:

If you spend a decade of blood, sweat, and tears, working your way up the "corporate chain" of a job, and finally make it to some kind of senior executive position... one you wanted.. one where you could ensure the company actually ran the way that you wanted it to run... and you got the salary you wanted becuase of it, and the hours you wanted, and because of that, the house you wanted, and the location you wanted....

Why would you ever want to change jobs, at that point?!

I think that people change jobs, basically, because they cant make their current job, into what they want for their life.
In contrast, a good marriage, in my opinion, always tries to enhance what each person wants for their life.

So, if you have built a good marriage, kinda like the "good job" example I just gave... seems straightforward to me, at least, that sticking with it, would be way more enjoyable than switching.

PS: one more (short!) point
The big difference between climbing the corporate ladder, and a marriage.. is that in the corporate climb, your progression may depend on a whole bunch of arbitrary things, and people, that could stand in your way. it may not be possible to succeed at a particular company.

In a marriage, however... if both people give it their full effort.. any marriage can be a great marriage.

That can be a big IF, though.